That’s because there is no difference, or at least in the sense that “anti-social” is now used. Before the English language was given extraordinary rendition by the mandarins of Whitehall there were quite clearly defined boundaries between bad behaviour – often boyish larks of the Just William variety – and crime. Knock Down Ginger is anti-social – threatening to decapitate your neighbour with an axe is straightforward crime.

Denis O'Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said police must take the issue more seriously as he revealed more than half of forces do not even know when they are dealing with a repeat victim. Officers have been accused of not making anti social behaviour a priority, especially in the wake of the Fiona Pilkington case who killed herself and her severely disabled 18-year-old daughter Francecca. The tragedy happened after nothing was done to tackle years of abuse from yobs in Hinckley, Leicestershire, even though she made dozens of complaints to officers. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has also admitted the Government has been "coasting" over tackling the problem.

Home Office figures say there are 3.6 million reports of anti social behaviour each year but Mr O'Connor said under reporting suggested the true figure is more than seven million. In contrast there are 4.6 million crimes recorded by the police annually.

But what is the difference? According to the police the following are classed as “anti-social”:

Substance misuse such as glue sniffing

Drinking alcohol on the streets

Problems related to animals such as not properly restraining animals in public places

The problem with this wide definition is that it criminalises behaviour that is not illegal – drinking in the street, for example, or arguing with neighbours – and at the same time trivialises crime – begging, soliciting and “firearms incidents” are all real crimes that most people would like to see properly punished.

And the perceived solution, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, which this Government introduced in 1998, are both a genuine threat to freedom and at the same time almost totally useless. A mugger or burglar should be sent to jail, not given repeated, ineffective warnings that are simply ignored; a strange old man who repeatedly makes sarcastic comments to his neighbours, or a boy who does wolf impressions, is not the responsibility of the law.

A society cannot function if it relies on policemen and lawyers to mediate in every dispute, but without the threat of the state as back-up law-abiding citizens are at a disadvantage against street bullies. This is why polls consistently show Britons are least willing to intervene to stop yobs – it’s not that we’re more cowardly than other European nations, it just that we do not believe that if the bad guys turn nasty they would be properly punished. More importantly the bad guys do not believe it either, and neither do any bystanders who might otherwise be willing to join in.

So rather than punishing criminals for actual offences the police increasingly feel the need to regulate almost every aspect of life, from murder to “malicious communication”, and are positively encouraged to do so by a target culture that rewards the petty-minded harassment of the law-abiding. Let's make a pledge for the new decade and abolish the phrase "anti-social behaviour" as a euphemism for crime.